I understand the sentiment --there's not much call for off-roading in Irvington --but also wonder at the intolerance. Then again, we're getting pretty good at judging other people's choices. Just consider the Columbia River Crossing debate.

On my morning commute, I often bike past a white Hummer that has been vandalized twice in the past six months.

I understand the sentiment --there's not much call for off-roading in Irvington --but also wonder at the intolerance. Then again, we're getting pretty good at judging other people's choices. Just consider the Columbia River Crossing debate.

A committee of local leaders agreed Friday to put 12 lanes on the planned Interstate 5 bridge, prompting boos from the southern side of the river. Environmentalists and progressives want an eight- or 10-lane bridge if one is built at all. They've accused Portland Mayor Sam Adams of betraying his green supporters by crafting a deal with Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, agreeing to a bigger bridge in exchange for more local control over its operation.

The opposition argument goes like this: The wider the bridge, the less incentive people have to abandon their cars for trains or bikes. More lanes means more sprawl in Washington, because there they don't care about Mother Nature the way we do --or maybe don't know any better.

The problem with that position is the underlying condescension. Sprawl is bad. When it comes to air quality, what happens in Washington does not stay in Washington.

But some people want to live on lots measured in acres rather than square feet, shop at big-box stores and drive minivans powered by good old-fashioned gasoline. That is their right, so long as those suburban paradises are planned in a reasonably intelligent way.

Washington leaders have come a long way since the Glenn Jackson Bridge opened in 1982. They have urban growth boundaries now, along with better land-use laws and, at least on paper, a commitment to smarter development.

"There are misconceptions on both sides of the river," said Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart. "There's a misconception on my side of the river that people in Portland want to cram light rail down our throats. On the Oregon side, there's a misconception that we don't have any controls on growth or any interest in planning for the future."

If we're going to spend $4 billion --a number that will undoubtedly go up, up and up between now and whenever the thing actually opens --a new bridge must be big enough to deal with all the growth that's coming. (While we're at it, can we start the conversation now about widening or rerouting Interstate 5 as it winds through North Portland?)

The Powers That Be on both banks should do everything possible to encourage people not to drive and to build their lives around multiple transportation methods. The new bridge needs ample bike lanes, light rail and tolls that take into account whether you're driving solo or carpooling. We need regional land-use strategies that cross state lines.

And in Portland proper, we must become even more serious about encouraging those 400,000 people headed our way in the next 20 years to pick a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. That means creating affordable housing --actual houses versus condos or apartments --improving public schools and building more bike lanes and mass transit.

Maybe, someday, bridge tolls can pay for some of that. Until then, trying to govern growth by limiting lanes seems short-sided, patronizing and sort of pointless. It's akin to keying somebody's Hummer to protest their gas-guzzling ways: Emotionally satisfying, but not an effective way to encourage change.